A Matter of Law
By Pastor Ralph Ovadal, October, 2003
On September 3, 2003, Rev. Paul Hill was executed by the State of Florida for killing abortionist John Britton and his bodyguard James Barrett on July 29, 1994. Hill shot the two men in the head at point-blank range with a twelve-gauge shotgun on the parking lot of a Pensacola, Florida abortion clinic where Britton plied his grisly trade. From the time of the killings until his death by lethal injection, Reverend Hill staunchly insisted that the shootings were acts of justifiable homicide in defense of thirty-two unborn human beings about to be murdered.
Since that fateful September day, Hill's actions have been vigorously defended by a number of pro-lifers who agree with his application of the justifiable homicide defense. I am not among that number, though I am not necessarily comfortable with those who, almost from the moment Hill pulled the trigger on his shotgun, have simply reduced the whole matter down to "Murder is murder. Paul Hill is a murderer." The use of lethal force in defense of unborn human life is a grave matter on many counts. Emotional appeals to out-of-context legal axioms do not justify the unrighteous use of force, while understandable but emotional, knee-jerk revulsion without a basis in law in response to the use of such force may demean the lives of unborn human beings.
Several months before Mr. Hill killed Britton and Barrett, he called me on the phone and asked if I would be willing to sign his "Defensive Action Statement" which essentially made the point that any force which can rightfully be used in defense of the born can be asserted in defense of the unborn. I turned down that request. I am glad that I did so—not because the principle is wrong but because such a principle must be very firmly defined and hedged about by lawful application. To not do so is to invite the unlawfully shed blood of the born to join the blood of the unborn in polluting the land.
I firmly believe that Paul Hill's actions on July 29, 1994 were criminal in every regard. The Sixth Commandment states, "Thou shalt not kill." Some Christians would say the translators of the Authorized Version got it wrong. Those Christians say that the commandment should state, "Thou shalt not murder," just as the modern perversions read. They are wrong. God forbids any unlawful taking of human life, not just murder.
Homicide, the killing of a human being, fell under three categories according to the common law, this in faithful reflection of God's law. The first category is justifiable homicide. This is the unavoidable taking of human life by the state as punishment in a capital crime, in war, or by police officers in the line of duty. The second category of homicide is excusable homicide. Self-defense by citizens and the necessary defense of others falls under that heading. The last category of homicide is felonious homicide, a criminal act of which there are two types. The first is the unjustifiable, inexcusable taking of a human life—in other words, murder. The second is the unlawful taking of a human life but with no premeditation or malice and with mitigating circumstances such as extreme provocation. That is voluntary manslaughter and differs from involuntary manslaughter in that it is an intentional act, albeit one done with extreme provocation and in the heat of the moment.
Those who would justify Paul Hill's shootings have a high legal threshold to surmount. The taking of human life, even in self-defense or in the defense of others, can only be done when the person being defended is clearly in danger of death or great bodily harm, and his defender has no effective alternative. In Exodus 22:2-3, this principle is spelled out practically. If an individual was killed while breaking into a home in the night, that was excusable homicide. The law was "there shall no blood be shed for him." In other words, the occupants of the house could have no way of knowing if their lives were about to be taken by the intruder, and they had a right to use deadly force if they felt it was necessary to protect themselves and their loved ones. However, if the thief was breaking into the house in the daylight, it was deemed murder to kill him. This supposes the thief is only that—an identifiably unarmed thief which poses no immediate, deadly threat to anyone, only to property. The point here is that one cannot take a life even in self-defense unless there is no available alternative, and the act is absolutely necessary to protect an innocent life.
Taking a human life is such a serious matter that most states in America require a person to retreat to a far corner of his house, if he can reasonably and safely do so, before he turns to deadly force against an intruder. In Israel, the Lord set up cities of refuge for the incarceration, so to speak, of individuals who committed involuntary manslaughter by simple carelessness. God looks at the killing of a human being, for any reason, as an extremely serious act.
Yes, abortion is murder, but Paul Hill had plenty of viable alternatives to blowing the heads off of an abortionist and his body guard while also wounding the wife of the latter. It is reported that his actions on July 29, 1994 saved a sum total of one baby from death. He could have easily saved one baby had he chosen to pray, picket, and sidewalk counsel that day instead of turning to deadly violence himself. Since he was willing, and determined, to violate the law in defense of life, there are many lesser acts he could have taken to actually close down the death camp that day. Abortion clinics in America have been shut down for a day or longer by single individuals through all sorts of creative actions which carry no danger of injuring, much less killing, anyone. People have chained themselves up in front of clinic doors in ways that took many hours to safely remove them. Individuals have squirted harmless but incredibly strong smelling substances under clinic doors or into ventilation systems. Several years ago, a Roman Catholic priest in Rockford, Illinois drove his car through the front door of an abortion clinic in the early morning hours. I do not point to these methods by way of encouragement to action but only to highlight that Paul Hill had absolutely no excuse to shoot two men and one woman on July 29, 1994. It is also relevant to raise the issue that Paul Hill could have saved many more preborn babies than the one he reportedly saved on July 29, 1994 had he been out of jail the last nine years, picketing and preaching against abortion.
Now, regarding Hill's crimes, one could make the argument that he committed voluntary manslaughter, that he lashed out in such a deadly way after being severely provoked by the spectacle of the daily, state-sanctioned mass murder at the abortion clinic where he picketed and counseled mothers not to murder their children. Certainly the flaw in that argument is that Hill did not act on the spur of the moment but premeditated his acts. But even under the voluntary manslaughter scenario, Mr. Hill would be guilty of violating God's commandment against unlawful killing. In wounding Barrett's wife, he was also guilty of attempted murder since his act happened in the commission of a felony. If convicted of such serious charges, Hill would have justifiably spent the rest of his life in prison instead of being executed, but perhaps the humanity of the unborn would have been better served.
Those who tout Paul Hill as a hero and martyr are bestowing noble status to a manslayer at best and a murderer at worst. Paul Hill had no right to gun down two men and callously wound a woman under the guise of protecting the preborn. In statements given after his shooting spree, Hill expressed relief that no police officers happened on the scene before he was able to kill the abortionist because he would have had to kill the officers as well if necessary to achieve his goal! How can any Christian justify such a willingness, even eagerness, to kill? Paul Hill never confided his plans to his wife prior to his shooting spree, and he made no provision for the care of his wife and children for after it. How can any Christian commend such a callous desertion of familial responsibility? Unlike many combat veterans who have expressed regret at having to legitimately take life in war, to my knowledge, Paul Hill never expressed regret for his bloody acts with a twelve-gauge shotgun and, in fact, could smile while talking about the acts shortly after they were committed.
The taking of unborn human life is murder, yet the whole abortion situation still does pose unique circumstances from the murder of the born. Preborn human life is being snuffed out by abortifacient birth control, by "morning-after pills," and by RU-486. If one is going to excuse the shooting of abortionists, then he must also excuse the shooting of pharmacists. The "have no doubt, just rub them out" crowd says that we who oppose lethal force against abortionists are inconsistent in our treatment of the unborn, but they do not emulate Paul Hill's actions. They say they are not "called" and, in fact, equate it to a missionary calling, thus making themselves the inconsistent ones. Surely if their own born loved ones were about to be murdered, they would not want a Christian brother who could stop it to demur from doing anything because he did not feel "called."
A pastor I know, who is hypocritically playing both sides of the fence, has written that Paul Hill is the "sanest and bravest man of our age" but then stated, "it is legitimate to question whether Paul used the proper amount of force or too much." The taking of human life is a deadly serious matter. Every killing is either justifiable, excusable, or a crime of the highest magnitude. It is ludicrous to say that Paul Hill is a hero although he may have used just a wee bit too much force when he scattered the skulls, brains, and blood of two human beings all over a parking lot in 1994. There is no gray area with regard to taking human life. There is no error margin or wiggle room. The killing of human beings is either right, or it is a grievous sin to be severely punished by the civil government.
I cannot conceive of any instance in this country where the killing of an abortionist could be justified or excused. Paul Hill violated the Sixth Commandment of God's law; and unless he repented of his crimes, he is now in the torments of hell. The story of Paul Hill is the story of what legalized abortion does to the heart of a nation. Now the killer of a killer of preborn babies has been killed by the civil government that allows and facilitates the murder of those babies. Blood does indeed touch blood, and God does indeed have a controversy with America (Hosea 4:1-2).
On September 3, 2003, Rev. Paul Hill was executed by the State of Florida for killing abortionist John Britton and his bodyguard James Barrett on July 29, 1994. Hill shot the two men in the head at point-blank range with a twelve-gauge shotgun on the parking lot of a Pensacola, Florida abortion clinic where Britton plied his grisly trade. From the time of the killings until his death by lethal injection, Reverend Hill staunchly insisted that the shootings were acts of justifiable homicide in defense of thirty-two unborn human beings about to be murdered.
Since that fateful September day, Hill's actions have been vigorously defended by a number of pro-lifers who agree with his application of the justifiable homicide defense. I am not among that number, though I am not necessarily comfortable with those who, almost from the moment Hill pulled the trigger on his shotgun, have simply reduced the whole matter down to "Murder is murder. Paul Hill is a murderer." The use of lethal force in defense of unborn human life is a grave matter on many counts. Emotional appeals to out-of-context legal axioms do not justify the unrighteous use of force, while understandable but emotional, knee-jerk revulsion without a basis in law in response to the use of such force may demean the lives of unborn human beings.
Several months before Mr. Hill killed Britton and Barrett, he called me on the phone and asked if I would be willing to sign his "Defensive Action Statement" which essentially made the point that any force which can rightfully be used in defense of the born can be asserted in defense of the unborn. I turned down that request. I am glad that I did so—not because the principle is wrong but because such a principle must be very firmly defined and hedged about by lawful application. To not do so is to invite the unlawfully shed blood of the born to join the blood of the unborn in polluting the land.
I firmly believe that Paul Hill's actions on July 29, 1994 were criminal in every regard. The Sixth Commandment states, "Thou shalt not kill." Some Christians would say the translators of the Authorized Version got it wrong. Those Christians say that the commandment should state, "Thou shalt not murder," just as the modern perversions read. They are wrong. God forbids any unlawful taking of human life, not just murder.
Homicide, the killing of a human being, fell under three categories according to the common law, this in faithful reflection of God's law. The first category is justifiable homicide. This is the unavoidable taking of human life by the state as punishment in a capital crime, in war, or by police officers in the line of duty. The second category of homicide is excusable homicide. Self-defense by citizens and the necessary defense of others falls under that heading. The last category of homicide is felonious homicide, a criminal act of which there are two types. The first is the unjustifiable, inexcusable taking of a human life—in other words, murder. The second is the unlawful taking of a human life but with no premeditation or malice and with mitigating circumstances such as extreme provocation. That is voluntary manslaughter and differs from involuntary manslaughter in that it is an intentional act, albeit one done with extreme provocation and in the heat of the moment.
Those who would justify Paul Hill's shootings have a high legal threshold to surmount. The taking of human life, even in self-defense or in the defense of others, can only be done when the person being defended is clearly in danger of death or great bodily harm, and his defender has no effective alternative. In Exodus 22:2-3, this principle is spelled out practically. If an individual was killed while breaking into a home in the night, that was excusable homicide. The law was "there shall no blood be shed for him." In other words, the occupants of the house could have no way of knowing if their lives were about to be taken by the intruder, and they had a right to use deadly force if they felt it was necessary to protect themselves and their loved ones. However, if the thief was breaking into the house in the daylight, it was deemed murder to kill him. This supposes the thief is only that—an identifiably unarmed thief which poses no immediate, deadly threat to anyone, only to property. The point here is that one cannot take a life even in self-defense unless there is no available alternative, and the act is absolutely necessary to protect an innocent life.
Taking a human life is such a serious matter that most states in America require a person to retreat to a far corner of his house, if he can reasonably and safely do so, before he turns to deadly force against an intruder. In Israel, the Lord set up cities of refuge for the incarceration, so to speak, of individuals who committed involuntary manslaughter by simple carelessness. God looks at the killing of a human being, for any reason, as an extremely serious act.
Yes, abortion is murder, but Paul Hill had plenty of viable alternatives to blowing the heads off of an abortionist and his body guard while also wounding the wife of the latter. It is reported that his actions on July 29, 1994 saved a sum total of one baby from death. He could have easily saved one baby had he chosen to pray, picket, and sidewalk counsel that day instead of turning to deadly violence himself. Since he was willing, and determined, to violate the law in defense of life, there are many lesser acts he could have taken to actually close down the death camp that day. Abortion clinics in America have been shut down for a day or longer by single individuals through all sorts of creative actions which carry no danger of injuring, much less killing, anyone. People have chained themselves up in front of clinic doors in ways that took many hours to safely remove them. Individuals have squirted harmless but incredibly strong smelling substances under clinic doors or into ventilation systems. Several years ago, a Roman Catholic priest in Rockford, Illinois drove his car through the front door of an abortion clinic in the early morning hours. I do not point to these methods by way of encouragement to action but only to highlight that Paul Hill had absolutely no excuse to shoot two men and one woman on July 29, 1994. It is also relevant to raise the issue that Paul Hill could have saved many more preborn babies than the one he reportedly saved on July 29, 1994 had he been out of jail the last nine years, picketing and preaching against abortion.
Now, regarding Hill's crimes, one could make the argument that he committed voluntary manslaughter, that he lashed out in such a deadly way after being severely provoked by the spectacle of the daily, state-sanctioned mass murder at the abortion clinic where he picketed and counseled mothers not to murder their children. Certainly the flaw in that argument is that Hill did not act on the spur of the moment but premeditated his acts. But even under the voluntary manslaughter scenario, Mr. Hill would be guilty of violating God's commandment against unlawful killing. In wounding Barrett's wife, he was also guilty of attempted murder since his act happened in the commission of a felony. If convicted of such serious charges, Hill would have justifiably spent the rest of his life in prison instead of being executed, but perhaps the humanity of the unborn would have been better served.
Those who tout Paul Hill as a hero and martyr are bestowing noble status to a manslayer at best and a murderer at worst. Paul Hill had no right to gun down two men and callously wound a woman under the guise of protecting the preborn. In statements given after his shooting spree, Hill expressed relief that no police officers happened on the scene before he was able to kill the abortionist because he would have had to kill the officers as well if necessary to achieve his goal! How can any Christian justify such a willingness, even eagerness, to kill? Paul Hill never confided his plans to his wife prior to his shooting spree, and he made no provision for the care of his wife and children for after it. How can any Christian commend such a callous desertion of familial responsibility? Unlike many combat veterans who have expressed regret at having to legitimately take life in war, to my knowledge, Paul Hill never expressed regret for his bloody acts with a twelve-gauge shotgun and, in fact, could smile while talking about the acts shortly after they were committed.
The taking of unborn human life is murder, yet the whole abortion situation still does pose unique circumstances from the murder of the born. Preborn human life is being snuffed out by abortifacient birth control, by "morning-after pills," and by RU-486. If one is going to excuse the shooting of abortionists, then he must also excuse the shooting of pharmacists. The "have no doubt, just rub them out" crowd says that we who oppose lethal force against abortionists are inconsistent in our treatment of the unborn, but they do not emulate Paul Hill's actions. They say they are not "called" and, in fact, equate it to a missionary calling, thus making themselves the inconsistent ones. Surely if their own born loved ones were about to be murdered, they would not want a Christian brother who could stop it to demur from doing anything because he did not feel "called."
A pastor I know, who is hypocritically playing both sides of the fence, has written that Paul Hill is the "sanest and bravest man of our age" but then stated, "it is legitimate to question whether Paul used the proper amount of force or too much." The taking of human life is a deadly serious matter. Every killing is either justifiable, excusable, or a crime of the highest magnitude. It is ludicrous to say that Paul Hill is a hero although he may have used just a wee bit too much force when he scattered the skulls, brains, and blood of two human beings all over a parking lot in 1994. There is no gray area with regard to taking human life. There is no error margin or wiggle room. The killing of human beings is either right, or it is a grievous sin to be severely punished by the civil government.
I cannot conceive of any instance in this country where the killing of an abortionist could be justified or excused. Paul Hill violated the Sixth Commandment of God's law; and unless he repented of his crimes, he is now in the torments of hell. The story of Paul Hill is the story of what legalized abortion does to the heart of a nation. Now the killer of a killer of preborn babies has been killed by the civil government that allows and facilitates the murder of those babies. Blood does indeed touch blood, and God does indeed have a controversy with America (Hosea 4:1-2).